By Amanda Yong, The New Paper, Friday, Oct 28, 2011
SHE had filed for a divorce in May 2005, but neither of them applied to finalise their divorce three months after a provisional divorce order was granted by the court in September 2006. So Jean, 48, an antiques dealer from Shanghai, China, found herself still in the middle of divorce proceedings when John, 78, a Singaporean businessman, died of a heart attack in February.
We are not using their real names to protect their identities. In a rare move, John's nephew and niece, who are the executors and trustees of his estate, applied to finalise the divorce, but this was rejected by District Judge Michelle Woodworth Cordeiro on Sept 27.
They are appealing against the decision. They had argued through their lawyer, MrKoh Tien Hua, that there was a need to make the divorce final. Firstly, it was necessary for the sake of finality. It would also be "a notice to the world" that the divorce was granted and ancillary matter orders made.
Another reason was that Jean, represented by lawyer Dorothy Chai Li Li, had claimed during the court hearing that she had borne John a daughter, now eight. John's nephew and niece are disputing that the child is John's.
Jean had stated "nil" in her divorce petition in May 2005 for children arising from the marriage. But a few months ago, she made a separate application seeking maintenance for her daughter from John's estate.
The court was told that John's will named his nephew and niece as the trustees and executors of his estate. This granted them probate, a court order authorising the dead person's executors to administer his estate according to the directions in his will.
Widowed
As long as the divorce is not finalised, Jean's legal status remains as that of John's widow, said a family lawyer interviewed by The New Paper. "As his widow, she may be able to apply to set aside the interim divorce order. If that is successful, all other ancillary court orders including for maintenance and division of assets can also be set aside," he said.
She may also claim his entire inheritance as he has no surviving parents or siblings. He had no children from his first marriage, which ended in divorce.
In November 2009, before the issue of a child from the marriage was raised, the court ordered that Jean should be given 20 per cent of the net proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial flat as well as 10 per cent of other matrimonial assets, which amounted to about $54,000, and a lump sum maintenance of $14,400. She appealed for more, but the case was adjourned by the High Court in March and has yet to be heard.
Despite John's death, the appeal can still take place as his nephew and niece can represent him. John and Jean registered their marriage in Singapore in September 1992. By 2001, their marriage was on the rocks and they were living separately.
Jean, through Ms Chai, had objected to the application by John's nephew and niece to finalise the divorce, saying that they had not been officially appointed to represent John in the divorce proceedings. She added that since her husband had died, the proceedings were considered null and void.
In her written judgment, Judge Cordeiro said that while the marriage existed as only a "shell" or a "technical bond" between the couple after they were granted an interim divorce, there was still a marriage up till the time of John's death. And the dissolution of the marriage was brought about by his death, so it was not for the court to pronounce that it was over.